The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0
draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt

Abstract

This document specifies IETF consensus related to and changes made to Unicode when version 6.0 was released on Oct 11 2011. The consensus is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based on the changes made in Unicode 6.0.

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2011.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
    1.1.  U+0CF1 KANNADA SIGN JIHVAMULIYA
    1.2.  U+0CF2 KANNADA SIGN UPADHMANIYA
    1.3.  U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE
2.  IETF Consensus
3.  IANA Considerations
    3.1.  IDNA derived property value registry
4.  Security Considerations
5.  Acknowledgements
6.  References
    6.1.  Normative References
    6.2.  Informative References
§  Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

RFC 5892 (Faltstrom, P., “The Unicode Code Points and Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA),” August 2010.) [RFC5892] specifies an algorithm that based on The Unicode Standard (The Unicode Consortium, “The Unicode Standard, Version 6.0.0,” October 2010.) [Unicode6] defines a derived property value. Unicode 6.0 has changed GeneralCategory to three codepoints that in turn imply the derived property value changes when the IDNA 2008 algorithm is applied.

1.1.  U+0CF1 KANNADA SIGN JIHVAMULIYA

The GeneralCategory changes for this character from So to Lo. This implies the derived property value will change from DISALLOWED to PVALID.

1.2.  U+0CF2 KANNADA SIGN UPADHMANIYA

The GeneralCategory changes for this character from So to Lo. This implies the derived property value will change from DISALLOWED to PVALID.

1.3.  U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE

The GeneralCategory changes for this character from Nd to No. This implies the derived property value will change from PVALID to DISALLOWED.

2.  IETF Consensus

No change to RFC 5892 is needed based on the changes made in Unicode 6.

This consensus does not imply that no changes will be made to RFC 5892 for all future updates of The Unicode Standard.

The IETF will produce a new RFC of this type for every change of The Unicode Standard even when there are no changes being made to RFC 5892, such as is the case for this document.

3.  IANA Considerations

3.1.  IDNA derived property value registry

IANA is to update the derived property value registry according to RFC 5892 and property values in The Unicode Standard.

4.  Security Considerations

When the algorithm presented in RFC 5892 is applied to Unicode 6.0 the result will be different from when it is applied to Unicode 5.2 for the three codepoints discussed in this document. IETF consensus is though that the changes are minor, and that it is important IDNA standard is aligned with the Unicode Standard.

5.  Acknowledgements

The main contributors are (in alphabetical order) Eric Brunner-Williams, Vint Cerf, Tina Dam, Mark Davis, John Klensin, Pete Resnick, Markus Scherer, Andrew Sullivan, Kenneth Whistler and Nicholas Williams.

6.  References

6.1. Normative References

6.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses